ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Comparative Evaluation of USG, CT, and MRI in Acute Pancreatitis.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early non-contrast CT morphology at emergency admission in acute pancreatitis: real-world associations with clinical course.Emergency radiology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The present study was conducted to study and associate the findings of imaging - ultrasound (USG), contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), and in some cases, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in acute pancreatitis (AP) at our institute. Methods: An observational study was conducted for a duration of 18 months on 70 patients clinically diagnosed with AP. All patients underwent USG and CECT; MRI was performed in three cases. Results: USG visualized the pancreas in 69 (98.57%) of cases and identified peripancreatic fluid in 56 (80%) and gallstones in 25 (35.71%). However, it failed to see the pancreas in one case due to bowel gases. CT visualized the pancreas in all cases and identified necrosis in 40 (57.14%) cases, peripancreatic fluid in 56 (80%), peripancreatic fat stranding in 53 (75.71%), pseudocysts in four (5.71%), ascites in 36 (51.43%), pleural effusion in 30 (42.86%), and hepatosplenomegaly in 28 (40%), but identified stones in only three (4.28%) cases. Significant association was seen between bulky pancreas on USG and CT ( Conclusion: CT was the most reliable modality for assessing disease severity and local complications. USG proved to be a useful initial screening tool, especially for gallstone detection. MRI added value in selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.